My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PRECA 09-05-1979
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
Parks And Recreation
>
Minutes Park & Recreation Commission Meetings P&R 01200
>
AGENDAS
>
1979
>
PRECA 09-05-1979
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2007 3:47:13 AM
Creation date
3/16/2007 8:49:52 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
•. <br />.~ <br />• '~-,, <br />k <br />~~~~~ <br />Funds for acquisition and development of regional parks are provided to the <br />implementing agencies through the Metropolitan Council from the state legislature. <br />But operation and maintenance of regional parks are financed by the implementing <br />agencies. <br />In 1978, the I1 implementing agencies spent nearly $14 million for operation and <br />maintenance of regional parks. Their principal source of revenue, about 70 <br />percent, is local property tax revenues. The rest of the money comes from <br />fees paid by people using the parks, and from grants, from the federal <br />Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) and the state Dutch Elm Disease <br />abatement program. <br />The Council is committed to report to the legislature in 1981 .regarding operation <br />and maintenance of the regional park system. This report should address current <br />funding levels, .needed funding increases, and appropriate funding sources to <br />finance the future system. These funding sources could include user fees, <br />special taxes, or general tax revenue available either on the metropolitan or <br />state level. Raising and sharing regional or state revenues for park operations <br />would establish a new precedent in this state. It would also prompt discussion <br />on the struct~~re of the government to deliver the services required. <br />6. REGIONAL PARK DISTRIBUTION <br />Should the policy plan give priority to developing regional parks most <br />accessible to Metropolitan Area residents, or to protecting "outstanding" <br />natural resources within the Area? <br />The regional recreation-open space system is based on two objectives. The first <br />is to provide regional parks for needed outdoor recreation to the people of the <br />Metropolitan Area, particularly through use of the outstanding water resources <br />.available. The second is to create park reserves to protect the seven <br />significant landscape types in the Region (e.g. prairie, flood plain, big woods). <br />The current policy plan gives top priority to acquisition and development of land <br />in or near the fully developed part of the Region for recreation. It places <br />a lower priority on park reserves. <br />The relative importance of accessibility to a regional park verses the quality <br />of the park has been and continues to be an issue in creating a regional recreation <br />system. Preliminary results of the Council's regional park demand/user study <br />indicate that citizens strongly prefer picnic and swimming facilities together <br />with boating on large lakes with good water quality. Most survey respondents <br />said they travel to the regional-park they rp efer, not necessarily to the one <br />located. nearest their residence. Most get there by car, even when bus service _ <br />to the park is available. The Council and Commission should consider these <br />factors, and other responses to the survey, in setting priorities for future <br />regional, park investments. <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.